PDA

View Full Version : Casual Players?


Azrealle
02-05-2011, 03:32 PM
This game sounds exactly like what the RTS community needs (IMHO), it will bring a persistant world which will remove the annoyance of zerg rush wins and give you a feeling of over-all game play story arcs... As a casual player am I going to be destroyed every week when I log off for 3-4 days at a time though? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to spend hours a day building up the orcish hordes to trounce humans but I have a family so...

Still reading and learning but I thought I would ask and see what folks say based on their own research.

BigX
02-05-2011, 03:40 PM
It certainly look like a refreshing way to approach an RTS. Hopefully it brings a wave of new big style RTS games. Bit bored of the same old crap that keep coming out.

EdwardTheGreat
02-05-2011, 03:43 PM
Based on my own research, I believe that once you log off, you can not be attacked by another player, but it will be nice not having to worry about losing what you work for while one is at work or tending to his or her family.

Dracus
02-05-2011, 10:09 PM
Based on my own research, I believe that once you log off, you can not be attacked by another player, but it will be nice not having to worry about losing what you work for while one is at work or tending to his or her family.

Do not worry about that you cannot be attacked while offline and above all there are level brackets being assigned so higher levels cannot just pwn the low level or new people joining the game.

Griegor Mcvennor
02-05-2011, 11:16 PM
Well that is certainly a relief. I wonder what oppurtunities there will be for roleplaying? Would it be possible to roleplay a kingdom as opposed to just being a collection of player clans?

doomkid98
02-06-2011, 08:02 AM
that has certantly relieved me now that i know i wont be ganked when im logged off but a new concern has arisen: wont it be extremely difficult to find people to raid as a majority of the players wont be logged on when u want to raid and therefor you will have to travel quite far to find someone.

Lee7778747
02-07-2011, 08:00 AM
There will be quests to do and a.I. to fight if a lot of people aren't on

nocixel
02-07-2011, 09:55 AM
Do not worry about that you cannot be attacked while offline and above all there are level brackets being assigned so higher levels cannot just pwn the low level or new people joining the game.


If the attack was initiated while you were online, can you log out real quick?
Or is it too late, at that point?

TriggerHappyNDB
02-07-2011, 12:58 PM
If the attack was initiated while you were online, can you log out real quick?
Or is it too late, at that point?

What we've been told so far is that when a player initiates an attack against you, you have two options:

Accept the challenge and bunker down in your fortress, ready to fend off the attacker's advance, or
Refuse the challenge and pay a resource tribute to your attacker. The amount of the tribute will depend on your level in relation to your attacker: The more challenging the opponent, the lower the tribute required to deny their challenge, and vice-versa.

Logging out with the challenge dialog on the screen would probably start a countdown timer to automatic refusal. If you log back in quickly enough (in the case of say, a disconnection), you may still have time to accept the challenge. If you do not, you will automatically decline and pay tribute to the attacker once it reaches zero.

Wuldor
02-07-2011, 01:10 PM
Im glad you cant be attacked when offline there would be nothing worse than coming on to find you had been raided

cyril360
02-07-2011, 03:05 PM
is possible destroy a player entire city and killing the player forever or conquer the city for the attacker

Noel Bohac
02-07-2011, 03:09 PM
I refer you to this thread on a current discussion about combat and offline. This should help clear up the casual aspects of the game play.

http://www.reverieworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2080

darklegends8
02-07-2011, 03:24 PM
What we've been told so far is that when a player initiates an attack against you, you have two options:

Accept the challenge and bunker down in your fortress, ready to fend off the attacker's advance, or
Refuse the challenge and pay a resource tribute to your attacker. The amount of the tribute will depend on your level in relation to your attacker: The more challenging the opponent, the lower the tribute required to deny their challenge, and vice-versa.

Logging out with the challenge dialog on the screen would probably start a countdown timer to automatic refusal. If you log back in quickly enough (in the case of say, a disconnection), you may still have time to accept the challenge. If you do not, you will automatically decline and pay tribute to the attacker once it reaches zero.

What if you don't have enough resources to pay?

TriggerHappyNDB
02-07-2011, 03:32 PM
What if you don't have enough resources to pay?

I imagine it takes whatever you have left. Either that, or the tribute isn't a static number but rather a percentage of your resources, such as a flat 10, 15, or 20%. Those are completely arbitrary guesstimate-style numbers, of course.

cyril360
02-07-2011, 03:48 PM
I imagine it takes whatever you have left. Either that, or the tribute isn't a static number but rather a percentage of your resources, such as a flat 10, 15, or 20%. Those are completely arbitrary guesstimate-style numbers, of course.

a group of players can attack a alone player?

Stormeh
02-08-2011, 03:06 AM
maybe in guild cities or whatnot, but id say a group of players all attacking one player might be a little over the top, otherwise a group of players could demolish one player/ abuse that system very easily.

billy341
02-08-2011, 05:11 AM
Yup, looking forward to trying it, it has an Empire Total War type of feel from the release video, no idea what its like in game.

TriggerHappyNDB
02-08-2011, 07:31 AM
a group of players can attack a alone player?
Not quite sure how you got this from what you quoted, but ultimately that is a possibility. If one player attacks another and the defender has an Alliance with a nearby friend, the Alliance system may invite that friend to help his ally. I'm sure, however, that such a system would be governed by the rules of balance. For example, if a level 5 player (let's say) accepted a challenge from a level 10 player, the game may search a list of his Allies for another level 4-6 player who could come to his aid. This could even out the engagement and provide an extra layer of complexity to the fight for the higher level to deal with. Now, if your concern is whether or not two or three high-level players could come along and wage war on your little town? No, that can't happen because all PvP is consensual--you would have to agree to fighting them, and assuming the skill parity is far enough apart, it would cost you nothing in tribute to say "No, thanks".

maybe in guild cities or whatnot, but id say a group of players all attacking one player might be a little over the top, otherwise a group of players could demolish one player/ abuse that system very easily.
Generally speaking, that would be true, but the devs had said elsewhere (I'll go dig it up if you'd like, I think it's in the suggestions forum) that there is a distinct possibility of uneven matchups so long as the field of battle is ultimately deemed equal. That is, if three level 4 players were fighting one level 14 player, the matchmaking system may see that as roughly equivalent and allow it to commence. After all, it can be a massive advantage to have three brains with smaller forces to manage against a single brain managing many units.

Keep in mind that my use of "levels" here is totally arbitrary and for example purposes only; I have no idea what the actual progression system in DoF looks like at this point.

swedishviking
02-08-2011, 04:38 PM
Not quite sure how you got this from what you quoted, but ultimately that is a possibility. If one player attacks another and the defender has an Alliance with a nearby friend, the Alliance system may invite that friend to help his ally. I'm sure, however, that such a system would be governed by the rules of balance. For example, if a level 5 player (let's say) accepted a challenge from a level 10 player, the game may search a list of his Allies for another level 4-6 player who could come to his aid. This could even out the engagement and provide an extra layer of complexity to the fight for the higher level to deal with. Now, if your concern is whether or not two or three high-level players could come along and wage war on your little town? No, that can't happen because all PvP is consensual--you would have to agree to fighting them, and assuming the skill parity is far enough apart, it would cost you nothing in tribute to say "No, thanks".


Generally speaking, that would be true, but the devs had said elsewhere (I'll go dig it up if you'd like, I think it's in the suggestions forum) that there is a distinct possibility of uneven matchups so long as the field of battle is ultimately deemed equal. That is, if three level 4 players were fighting one level 14 player, the matchmaking system may see that as roughly equivalent and allow it to commence. After all, it can be a massive advantage to have three brains with smaller forces to manage against a single brain managing many units.

Keep in mind that my use of "levels" here is totally arbitrary and for example purposes only; I have no idea what the actual progression system in DoF looks like at this point.

If there are level restrictions then it doesn't make sense to allow people so far down in the leveling scheme to attack someone 10 or more level higher....It might be like within a reasonable limit like 4 level 4 players attacking 1 level 8 player

GrimbleMcArmon
02-09-2011, 09:52 AM
mm i never took this into consideration i'll be a casual player as well.. i hope id on't get owned every time i log off

hocus
02-09-2011, 10:52 AM
Maybe there could be a limit to the number of times your attacked or possibly an immunity timer on when you can be attacked again. Imo it wouldnt make sense for armies to keep constantly attacking the same place if they've already been plundered and pillaged. Gives a player time to bolster defence ect ect. I like the offline production anyway its nice to think the serfs are still grafting whilst ime down the local tavern sinking a few frosties:D

TriggerHappyNDB
02-09-2011, 11:05 AM
Maybe there could be a limit to the number of times your attacked or possibly an immunity timer on when you can be attacked again. Imo it wouldnt make sense for armies to keep constantly attacking the same place if they've already been plundered and pillaged. Gives a player time to bolster defence ect ect. I like the offline production anyway its nice to think the serfs are still grafting whilst ime down the local tavern sinking a few frosties:D

As it stands I believe there is currently a system in place to prevent repeated attacks. Something like your city only being able to come under attack once every so many hours, etc.